I think it's been long enough that we can have a civilized

>>33695373
>I think it's been long enough that we can have a civilized discussion about the Stryker.


sure after you open with this

>What went wrong?

>Why was it allowed to be so bad?

they are excellent, end yourself

File: Stryker 11 APR 08 .jpg (2MB, 2241x1589px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2241x1589px

>>33695386

As someone who had to work with them, I can tell you, no, they are not excellent, by any stretch of the imagination.

>>33695373
It's a fucking Piranha variant, like almost every other western wheeled IFV.

IDK how people can shit on the Stryker yet sing the praises of the LAVs, Bisons, and Piranha IIIs.

>>33695417
Why must you fill /k/ with lies?

>No V-Hull until late 2015
JUST FUCK MY SHIT UP PARTNER

>>33695448
because truth is subjective and often those with the biggest mouths are perceived as those with the most valuable opinions

>>33695373
>I think it's been long enough that we can have a civilized discussion about the Stryker.
Nigga, the future heath death of the universe will happen before any civilized discussion on this thing happens

>>33695472
>because truth is subjective

No it isn't.

>>33695417
so you are going to provide what is the problem with them?

>>33695472

>truth is subjective

lmao what the fuck?
the very definition of truth is that it's NOT subjective.
A subjective truth is a belief.
go back to school.

File: Mowag1.jpg (206KB, 960x639px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 960x639px

Can any of you give me a few reasons why the Stryker is so good/bad?

Don't really know anything about. I only have experience with pic

>>33695521
here you go

>>33695434

File: IMG_1342.jpg (94KB, 462x462px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 462x462px

>>33695469
By 2015 there were hundreds of double V hull Strykers in service.

>>33695434
This.

Yet, due to the dod doctrine, it can fit every weapon under the sun on it, with documentation, testing, and doctrine.

Stryker is bad?

>>33695373
Fuck you OP i like the trucks.

>>33695582
No, but your english is.

>>33695582
No.

Anti Americans shit on everything. Blackhawk, f-16, osprey, Bradley, f-22, f-35, everything.

American exceptionalism triggers the fuck out of them

File: 6a00d8341bf80c53ef014e865668a8970d-500wi.jpg (46KB, 340x255px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 340x255px

>>33695615

>>33695615
but the stryker design is swiss

I'm a squad leader in a Stryker brigade. Strykers are maintenance heavy pieces of garbage that can barely go up hills. All my own and my soldiers time is spent keeping the pieces of shit running.

>>33695639
Exhibit A.

>>33695658
At its base, yep. But as soon as its touched by America it's instantly shit.

>>33695685
See >>33695448

>>33695685
what brigade bro? 56th myself.

>>33695685
>Strykers are maintenance heavy pieces of garbage
I'm pretty sure this can be said about ANY heavy armored vehicle.

>>33695704
Ayyyyeeee PA national Guard what's up? I used to be 55th ABCT until they disbanded us and merged us with 22nd brigade.

>>33695615
after having served as a bradley crew member I can't think of anything I REALLY disliked about them.

>>33695704
1/4 ID

File: 20170111_164421.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>33695701
Yes...so many lies. The only people who like strykers are fucking tankers and civilians who think they look cool. A Matv or rg33 does the same thing but better, we could by each squad 2 Matv or rg33 and have more firepower and room and save a couple million.

Stryker is just pathetic copy of BTR-80.

All I know is my friend did two tours in those with plenty of contact and he made it back alive. Wouldn't call that 'bad'. Can't say the same for the dune coons using soviet era armor.

>>33695853
RG-33 rolled more than a mid 90s SUV, boot.

MATV was alright though, and the new one looks pretty damn perfect.

But fuck the RG-33.

Strikers were just fine, wide with the slats is my only complaint.

>>33695532
EFP fucks.

>>33695723

Stryker isn't a heavy armored vehicle

I mean it's not exactly super labor or maintenance intensive either, no more than other wheeled infantry transports, outside the BTR series, which are extremely simple.

>>33695853
>RG-33

If you like barrel roles I guess.

>>33695728
my nigga. fucking hoping we finally get a deployment.

They're perfectly acceptable vehicles to meet their intent, they only issue is contractors keep changing their intent and generals/ approving authorities have no idea the real world application of these.

As A ltc you're told by the col to hold the line with strykrs. They're not well suited for that. Despite everyone saying so. Then it just goes down the line until eventually the psg and joes are like "You want me to do what? "

>Tl;dr enfill exfill vehicle good. Often misunderstood because it can have big guns ontop though and can't long gun fights.

File: russian-bumerang-8x8-apc.jpg (105KB, 1000x568px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1000x568px

Psh, step aside Amerisharts with your Canadian toys.

Superior mobility, protection and firepower coming right fucking through. Slavs once again STRONG.

>>33696190
Oh look, it's the Russians admitting their IFV doctrine for the last 50 years has been wrong.

>>33695515
>the very definition of truth is that it's NOT subjective.
Pure opinion

File: object_195_00.jpg (46KB, 1024x408px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 1024x408px

>>33696219

It WAS a great doctrine for massed mechanized, maneuver warfare on the plains of Germany.

Russia now faces a new geopolitical environment. Regional interventions and conflicts in protection of its near border regions against Anglo-Zionist proxy agents and containment tactics.

>>33696238
>>33696190

This thread is about American Strykers, not Russian Bumerangs.

>>33696238
>It WAS a great doctrine for massed mechanized, maneuver warfare on the plains of Germany.

Nope.

It nice to see you admitting doctrinal defeat.

>>33695878
>shooting at armored vesicles is mostly harassing fire. Rarely do they get targeted seriously and when they do its most likely IEDs after watching typical routes they take. Don't let your friends lord of the rings tier war stories fool you.

>>33696286
Newfag please leave.

Everything about your post is bad and you should feel bad.

>>33696298
t. pog

>>33695999
I actually switched to A/D now but I loved my time in the bloody bucket. What unit are you with? I had a buddy of mine in the unit out of Erie.

File: 1462009841314.jpg (342KB, 1500x1012px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1500x1012px

>>33696260

This thread is now property of the SLAVS.

Make a deal with it Shartnik.

>>33695878
Back when I was a tank pl my psg used the mgs system Stryker in iraq, said he loved it. As the best nco I've ever met, I'll take his anecdotal evidence any day.

Said they fucked up lots of people and huts. Was only effective though because sand people and ieds were either not effective, or really fucked up the crew, no in between. That's probably more an ied than a Stryker problem though

>>33695853
>A Matv or rg33 does the same thing but better
>how to broadcast that I am indeed lying

File: Boxer dust.jpg (443KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 1280x960px

Once again, German superior engineering shines above

>>33696642

>literally got cucked because Britain was going to buy them but then turned it down

>was going to buy 900 of them for 4 billion euros but woops no more deal

Obviously not as good as you thought. Especially since they tried to scam the MOD by demanding all production be in Germany.

Oh well tho. Guess we'll just have to see who wins the new competition.

>>33696190
>bum
>erang

Speaks for itself

>>33696190
Jesus hell that thing is huge

File: German face.png (33KB, 118x137px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 118x137px

>>33696786
>demanding all production be in Germany.

They're at it again!

>>33696642
god I HATE sitting in that fucking piece of FUCKING SHIT
It may look cool and advanced and all but it's so FUCKING cramped I'd rather sit in an older TPz again even if that means I die from the first mine we roll over
Then again it's got AC and a water Boiler so that's pretty cool

File: 1492580754643.png (742KB, 399x767px) Image search: [Google]

742KB, 399x767px

>>33696221
you're a nigger for trying to push that shit

File: Rxn Richard Fucking Nixon.jpg (23KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 400x400px

>>33696870
A man is not defeated when he loses

>>33696786

>$4,761,555 USD/unit

That's damn near MBT money.

>>33696851
simmer down lad

>>33697036

That's if they managed to produce all 900. There were rumours around it being 5-600.

And yes. They are OBSCENELY expensive for a fucking wheeled APC. Not even proof against 20mm without the plates you have to install either.

Germans know how to shekel and dime their customers.

>>33697067
No
You could put me into one of those things and I'll come out with wounds all over
Too big and clumsy for the boxer and that just makes me hate it
desu I mightve gone slightly retarded from hitting my head a thousand times on its frame

>>33696914
Fuck off Trudeau.

File: LAV-III.jpg (114KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 800x600px

What are the advantages/disadvantages of a manned turret e.g Lav-25,LAV III over an unmanned like the Stryker?

>>33695723
>pretty sure that can be said about any western vehicle
Ftfy

Even humvees are a dick to maintain. How the fuck did you fuck up a Jeep?

>>33696325
Is that the entire functioning airforce of Russia or just the heliforce?

>>33697354
>manned
Nigga in the gun
Can fix on spot
Simplicity
Cost
Generally packs larger gat (more to do with expense scaling with size)

>Unmanned
No nigga
Can't get capped cos the turret is an apatizing target
Smoler turret
More room for ammo and such for same size
Potentially makes targeting faster

>>33697518
In addition, you can easily pull the unmanned turret off and slap something else on top.

>>33697679
Is that universal or design specific? I can't really think of anything that makes a manned system more difficult to replace/alter.

File: 21473799270_60c9c98272_k.jpg (448KB, 2048x1361px) Image search: [Google]

448KB, 2048x1361px

>tfw 2-2 SBCT

End my life.

Strykers are just victims of the uncomfortable fact that million dollar vehicles get shredded by durka durka road bombs. Outside of their ridiculous shelf price, there's nothing notably more wrong with them than any other IFV

File: agstgwsfgaqw.png (333KB, 640x353px) Image search: [Google]

333KB, 640x353px

>>33695494
>Nigga, the future heath death of the universe will happen before any civilized discussion on this thing happens
> the future heath death of the universe will happen
>heath death of the universe

>>33695417
>>33695509
He had to work on them and that blows. I was a Bradley crewman back in the day and I feel the pain but they were still fun.

File: df-st-86-12144.jpg (127KB, 1200x789px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1200x789px

>>33695615
But all of those are bad, except the F-16. The F-16 is pretty cool. It's no Tigershark though.

>>33696316
im from 1-111th Cco Kutztown

Was the Stryker not introduced to give riflemen something to ride around in that wasn't a glorified car? I thought the goal of the Stryker was to deploy a reasonably armored vehicle that could transport a squad to battle almost as fast as an armored car, but with greater protection. Are people claiming it is shit because it can't do that or because there are other vehicles that can do it better? I would think any upgrade from the Humvee would be a good one just because it isn't a damn car even if it isn't quite on par with rival designs.

>>33697814
For the stryker at least, the autocannon turret is a completely self contained module that can be slapped onto any existing stryker. Because the turret assembly doesn't extend down into the actual hull of the vehicle, it's easily replaceable and doesn't compromise troop carrying capacity.

>>33699174
Yeah, the Stryker is essentially a battle taxi, given the bare minimum of armor to repel shrapnel and HMG rounds and meant to get a light infantry unit to the frontlines as quickly as possible.

Then people started complaining that it didn't have MBT levels of protection, which is the curse all western APCs and IFVs must suffer.

File: Taurox.jpg (10KB, 266x190px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 266x190px

The real question is how does the Stryker compare to one of these bad boys which is arguably better in every respect but overall speed.

File: 1461012185782.jpg (295KB, 1200x892px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 1200x892px

>>33696830

You mean STRONG..

File: 1475466255778.jpg (82KB, 917x900px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 917x900px

>>33698103

How do you Stryker-mounted fags actually plan to survive in an environment where the enemy has actual artillery and MLRS laying capabilities?

>>33695515
You imply that there is absolute truth.

>>33699374
Taurox is shit in game in out. Only the poor fucks playing Scions take them.

>>33695521
The Stryker is really good in the combined arms it enables. A Stryker can carry a full 9 man infantry squad, as opposed to the 6 men the Bradley carries. The other Strykers allow heavy weaponry to be carried even down at the company level, with each company having 2x 120mm mortar carriers and 3x 105mm gun armed MGS vehicles. In every single rifle company in the SBCT. That's a whole lot of boom. It also provides infantry with the tactical mobility they lack when legbound, but are more armored than when stuck in trucks and humvees.

>>33695417
Can confirm

As someone who crewed an M1135 NBCRV, they only upshot was air conditioning.

Other than that, they were total maintenance hogs, had an underpowered engine, and drove like drunken cows.

>>33699794
Were yours DVHs? They're getting new engines and new suspension.

File: IMG_20170405_133620.jpg (4MB, 4027x2607px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4027x2607px

Spotted these three guys getting a ride north out of Seattle a couple weeks ago. I assume they had a mothership to meet in Everett.

>>33696275
>Nope

Denial doesn't change the facts.

Also, nice projecting there, kiddo, what with the US Army all but outright copying old soviet doctrinal textbooks in their operations plans for both Desert Storm and the initial invasion during Iraqi Freedom.

Ain't nothing in the world that equals soviet doctrine for army-scale maneuver warfare even today.

>>33699742
Uh no, we've seen in Ukraine that these light vehicles are just fodder for artillery

Need to go heavier, and tracked.

>>33699664
math is absolute truth. 1 + 1 is and will be always 2.

>>33700062

Not in base 8

>>33695373
It's better than the Bradley.

File: CROWS-II-Javelin.jpg (31KB, 470x389px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 470x389px

>>33695373

>>33695373

Stryker pros/cons.... mind you I served as both a Stryker Master Trainer (what is now Stryker Master Gunner) and Stryker instructor with 1-29 IN at Fort Benning, GA. I also participated in developing and updating doctrine for Stryker Brigade Combat Teams through the Office of the Chief of Infantry at Fort Benning and then as a contractor/consultant after leaving the Army. Some of the Pro/Con are doctrine related and more of a "Big Army" issue (ie, funding, development, follow through...) then a platform specific issue.

PRO:
-role specific variants allow entire unit to be mobile and reasonably protected against similar threats on the battlefield
-M1126 ICV can transport rifle squad and RWS can provide fire support with infantry rifle company organic weapons (ie, M2 and Mk-19)
-reasonable ballistic protection against 14.5mm projectiles (non AP) and air burst 152mm artillery
-CBRN protection for crew and dismounts
-FBCB2 capability
-common parts for the majority of Stryker systems reduces logistics problems
-barely capable of transport by air force to theater

CON:
-maintenance intensive (especially hubs planetary gear inspection and lubrication in muddy/wet terrain)
-delay in heavy weapon upgrades for M1126 RWS ie, 30mm autocannon (finally in 2016...!) or standoff attack with the Javelin mount (pic related)
-up-armoring adds additional weight which limits mobility in certain off road terrain conditions
-IED vulnerability
-emerging threats on the battlefield outpacing Stryker variants upgrade and development (especially active defenses)


An issue is most people are comparing apples to oranges when discussing Stryker vs "Threat XYZ". For example, "Stryker MGS sucks against T-72" but US Army doctrine defines the role of MGS as an infantry support asset against light and medium armored threats such as BMP, BDRM and it is not intended to engage heavily armored threats such as tanks (that would be the job of the M1134 ATGM variant).

>>33695434
Itcs an LAV with none of the LAV's advantages.

>>33697354
Unmanned (basically a giant RWS) = no basket = more room inside = no troop capacity reduction.

>>33698148
Strykers are not very expensive for a quality 8x8.

>>33699998
Ukraine is a good example of what artillery can do when the entire battlefield is within range of cross border Grad fire.

>>33700240
What would you say about all the complaints that the Stryker is underpowered? I'm surprised you didn't mention it.

>>33699174
>program requirements include being able to roll off a C-130 ready to fight
>only fits into a C-130 if you strip everything off the exterior

>>33699267
It can only repel HMG rounds on the frontal arc, though.

>>33700240
>especially hubs planetary gear inspection and lubrication in muddy/wet terrain

Is that particular to the 3.5 suspension variants or does it include the newer 5.5/6.0?

>>33700457
By front you mean front and sides.

>>33700442
>program requirement dropped early on in program development

File: stryker1.jpg (1003KB, 2496x1664px) Image search: [Google]

1003KB, 2496x1664px

>>33700435

>What would you say about all the complaints that the Stryker is underpowered? I'm surprised you didn't mention it.

This is a common issue across several mechanized/motorized platforms in the US Army inventory (Stryker, Bradley, MRAP's to name a few). The Stryker power performance was degraded with the addition of more armor increasing weight and ground pressure and it struggles in sustained hill climbing. A proposed workaround at one point was a new powerpack increasing HP and torque but it was rejected because the data "suggested" stryker performed satisfactorily over "average terrain" rather than "extreme terrain" conditions.

>Is that particular to the 3.5 suspension variants or does it include the newer 5.5/6.0?

Its universal and has to deal with the hub lubrication access points and the poor seal allowing water and silt to enter the planetary gear during operations in wet/muddy terrain. Pic related is the wheel hub oil level window and the bolts that need to be removed to drain, flush and fill the hub planetary gear. Failure to ensure adequate lubrication (especially when the oil turns milky/colored vs clear) results in premature failure of the gears and hub fires. Oh... and the hubs contain magnesium alloy... and they catch fire quickly... so yeah good luck putting that fire out.

File: download (7).jpg (13KB, 270x187px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 270x187px

>>33699702
So would a Chimera be a more apt comparison.

File: 1485722870748_chime5.png (363KB, 811x533px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 811x533px

>>33699374
Tarox is shit. It looks stupid and is made out of paper. Twinlinked autocannons are neat, but it's basically a glorified heavy wepon squad that is huge and easily shot. Goliath rock grinders are what tauroxs should have been.

>>33695472
found the college puke that failed philo 101

>>33697434
>Even humvees are a dick to maintain.
wow you guys are fucking babies when it comes to bending wrenches.

>>33700732
>its universal
>picture of the earliest tires

File: stryker hub.jpg (204KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 1280x960px

>>33701369

>picture of the earliest tires

Thank god we are talking about the hub which is an entirely separate system from the tires you pleb.

>>33701150
Theres no reason for the US military to be intentionally procuring vehicles that need excessive maintenance

The striker was supposed to be fit around the striker brigade doctrine, which itself was part of the future soldier program. The idea was that you had hyper coordination armed light infantry with HUDs and all that smart tech shit mated with Strykers that also had all that high tech shit AND also having all the different variants (apc , command and control, mgs, tank destroyer, mortar carrier) tracking the infantry at all times to support them as the infantry leveraged their mobility. At the end of the day however, only the Stryker APC and MGS remained of the entire concept, rendering the vehicle pointless

>>33701622
You're right. Let's return to prop driven fighter craft

>>33698619
No shit man, I was with D. Co 1-109th. I used to date a girl that went to kutztown. You got some hot bitches over there.

>>33700240
My Nigga. I'm stuck down here with 3165th Cav now. Fuck this place.

File: icvv.jpg (420KB, 1829x883px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 1829x883px

>>33701408
So your experience is based on earlier versions after all.

So, 1st Cav Bradley Peasant here. Just want to say I look at 3CRs Strykers with jelly and longing as my shitty bradley just keeps fucking being worthless...

The Stryker has had it's issues in development and use, but it has never been as awful of a vehicle as the Bradley was and continues to be.

>>33701632
?
Would you buy a car that needs to go to the mechanic once a month?
Yes you can build stuff that doesn't need constant busywork

It really activates the ol' almonds how the military has kept in service an interim vehicle for over a decade now.

>>33702275

lol dude, quantity your remark with some anecdotes at least.

What makes a heavily armed and armored tracked IFV with a sweet thermal camera worse than a fucking wheeled tractor with a shitty ass .50 on a remote mount?

>>33702317
They've been using an interim rifle for 60 years now

File: 1490975187533.png (350KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 1080x1080px

>>33700240
>-role specific variants allow entire unit to be mobile and reasonably protected against similar threats on the battlefield

Really? What protection does a Stryker have against a TOW-2 ATGM now in the possession of every sand nigger in the Middle East since the Neo-Cohens opted to dispose of Assad?

>>33702322
What makes a heavily armed and armored tracked IFV with a sweet thermal camera worse than a fucking wheeled tractor with a shitty ass .50 on a remote mount?

>thermals don't always work
>Scratch that, everything in the Bradley almost doesn't work
>1 single thing breaks on the track, lol better just stop and chill for 4 hours trying to fix it instead of losing 1 of 8 wheels and rolling on
>Turret cramped, gun malfunctions constantly
>Armor so shitty, they not only bolted on Extra Armor to the outside, but to the INSIDE as well
>Speaking of armor, Lol not only no V-Hull, but the Ammo Storage for the vehicle is, you may have guessed, on the floor under the Passenger Ramps/ Seating, as well as the Driver sitting next to 2000+ rounds of 7.62.

The amount of shit that ends up just not working (not for lack of maintenance or it being intentionally broken from misuse, etc) is absolutely mindblowing. I've had BAE Contractors tell me "that cannot be broken in X way", then watch the horror come across their face as they realize it is indeed broke. This has happened with so many different parts/ systems it's hard to name them all: Radio Mounts, the 25mm, the turret drive and electrical systems, the IBAS, the FS3 (Fire Support System for the Forward Observer Bradleys) etc.

At the end of the Day, at least the Stryker is a true IFV, meant to taxi a full squad to the fight (instead of lol 4-6 in a Bradley), and not a thinly armored Pseudo-Tank.

File: 52e818f8bda3fc70dc1c54d65500d51f.jpg (241KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1024x768px

How did we go from this?

To a fucking light armed APC with a 50 caliber gun?

Why didn't we just upgrade the damn LAV-25?

Everything about the Stryker program sucks stinks of Bush-Cheney era defense contractor chicanery and embezzlement.

File: 1491351383584.jpg (1MB, 2458x1639px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2458x1639px

>>33702478

Those sound mostly like problems of the age of the Bradley program. I doubt the Strykers are going to be in better shape in 25 years.

The Army should have just got the CV-90 but with a 30 mm Bushmaster gun.

It's just so perfect?

Any opinions on this vehicle?

>>33702528
lav-25 was inherited through canada
we built our own giving general dynamics something to do
stryker is a solid apc and isn't just armed with .50 M2
if anything we need more of them in order to make mixed abram/bradley/stryker brigades

>>33700062
That's not actually true.

Math relies on 'self evident or intuitive assumptions'

Why does 1=1? Simple. A variable is defined such that it MUST equal itself. And 2 is defined to equal 1 + 1 there is no other reason for it to be such other than its definition.

1 + 1 = 2 is no different than a + b = c

It is simply definition.

Can you actually find an example of 1 + 1 = 2? You can be a smart ass, but in the real universe no you cannot.

Tldr math is an abstraction based on arbitrary 'intuitive' assumptions.

BTW not the faggot saying truth isn't real, just a guy who used to like pure math, until I learned at its most basic form. Math is philosophy. Just some food for though, or you can think about it while on the shitter.

>>33704097
you're a fucking retard, start with the greeks literally in this case

>>33704114
Do you actually have an argument? Or just need to say the final word to save your feelings?

>>33704132
math is based on numbers that we defined you blithering idiot, we define various sets of numbers and then perform operations on them

'show me 1+2 that exists in the real world' doesnt even make any sense, its not even the same context what so ever.

>>33704154
Did you not understand a single word I said? Jesus.

This is probably as dumb as I can put it for your mentally invalid ass:

Everything in math is an abstracting based on 'intuitive' assumptions. As such math is not objective because in order to 'prove math' you end up back at the initial assumptions.

The definition of numbers is arbitrary.

>>33704206
go read bertand russle on mathematics, im not wasting my time conversing with you

File: 1492103050779.jpg (27KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 600x600px

>>33702478
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

>>33702528
..except most of the Strykers are getting a better 30mm autocannon.

>>33702528
>Why didn't we just upgrade the damn LAV-25?

Why not just buy LAV III's? That's basically what the Stryker is.

>>33702528
They aren't the same thing at all. LAV-25s don't carry a full squad of infantry. The Army wanted something that could carry an entire squad.

>>33697469
Kek

File: SHARKOPAEDIA_02_FINAL_01_DLV.jpg (601KB, 2400x1275px) Image search: [Google]

601KB, 2400x1275px

>>33704270
>educate yourself shit Lord
Kek

>>33702573
the SAAB made lazor simulators for the machines are a big fucking lie

>>33704097
>1 + 1 = 2 is no different than a + b = c
technically what youre trying to say is that theyre just symbols with a systematic definition and while we're at that yes they are absolute truths in the represented system which is why it is so deep and interesting when we say that the universal language of the universe is math.
let me translate so you can understand: go fuck your hat

>>33704206
heh you're talking shit about basic arithmetic when i take two rocks and smash your head in and i pickup one more rock how many rocks do I have now that youre as dead as your brain has been up until now?

>>33705613
More accurately, they are considered absolute truths in our perception of the universe.

>>33698242
Fuck

>>33702465
Iron Fist

What's so bad about the Stryker? It seems like a fine medium APC that can hump troops around and give a bit of fire support? What else do US army infantry have for ground transport? The Bradley carries like 5 infantry on a good day, and the humvee is fairly lightly protected and small as well compared to the Stryker.

>>33704585
Navy have stuff that can carry entire battalions :)

File: 1491113640274.jpg (32KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 720x720px

>>33702478
is it really true that the Bradley can't even have its ATGMs deployed while on the move because the bracket that holds them is so weak, and will just break if you hit a bump while its extended?

Already outdated, should be replaced by a tracked IFV

>>33697308
Trag deinen verdammten Helm, du überbefördete Schulterglatze.

>>33699664
No, I imply that I don't care about epistemological wanking. You can bemoan how untrustworthy your senses are, but when it comes time to level that picture, you'll grab the laser or bubble level just like the rest of us and go about your day.

>>33696851
How can it be cramped? Isn't that thing near the same size of the Bismarck?

>>33706353
Fucking this. In a discussion essentially grounded in interaction with the perceivable reality around us in the extreme (warfare application), there's no damn place for "what do we really know?" Shitwanking. Bombs explode, bullets penetrate, the physical is real. So you have to operate in that reality. Or you can try to debate with the landmine you just stepped on if it "really" just blew your fucking legs 20 yards thataway.

>>33705940
You won't find a SACLOS missile that is fired on the move.

>>33700240
How do you guys like the RWS? Norwegian guy working for Kongsberg here

>>33702016
fuck yeah there is, but rampant stds.

>>33695373
t. William Lind